The arguments and amendments submitted 02/25/2026 have been considered. In light of amendments made, all prior USC § 112(b) rejections are hereby withdrawn. The merits of the claims, however, remain unpatentable as set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wu (US PG Pub 2019/0070777).
Regarding claim 1, Wu teaches a method for manufacturing a stereolithographically fabricated object (abstract, paras. 0002 and 0005, and Fig. 5), comprising:
simultaneously irradiating, with a light (DLP projector 40) respective n regions R1 to Rn of a photo-curable resin, where n is an integer of not less than 2 (“The DLP projector 40 may project the first projected area 331 and the second projected area 332 simultaneously to the third platform 34” per para. 0028 wherein projected areas 331 and 332 correspond to regions R1 and R2),
wherein an overlap area of the region Ri overlaps a part of the region Rj (“A large projected area may be formed by partially overlapping the first projected area 331 and the second projected area 332” per para. 0028), where i is an integer that satisfies 1< i < n and j is an integer that satisfies 1 < j < n and j is not equal to i (implicit for regions R1 and R2), and
the photo-curable resin is cured in a part or an entirety of the overlap area by irradiating the region Ri with the light (paras. 0006, 0029, and 0035).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (US PG Pub 2019/0070777), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of LeCompere (US PG Pub 2022/0118705).
Regarding claim 2, Wu does not teach this feature.
However, LeCompere teaches a stereolithography manufacturing method using a DLP light source (2 in Fig. 2 and para. 0087) wherein region Ri is formed by a corresponding i-th digital micromirror device (para. 0104 and see micro-mirror array 8 in Fig. 2).
In view of LeCompere’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Wu’s method so that region Ri is formed by a corresponding i-th digital micromirror device to predictably and conventionally provide smaller irradiation regions and improved patterning resolution.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of LeCompere, as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, further in view of Ishikawa (US PG Pub 2005/0191016).
Regarding claim 3, Wu and LeCompere do not teach this feature.
However, this feature is conventional in the stereolithography arts, as shown for example by Ishikawa. Ishikawa teaches an optical path from the corresponding i-th digital micromirror device to the photo-curable resin, a lens corresponding to the corresponding i-th digital micromirror device is disposed (paras. 0261-0264), with this configuration obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for predictably providing fine exposure control (para. 0264).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of LeCompere, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Llamazares (US PG Pub 2023/0116685).
Regarding claim 8, Wu and LeCompere do not teach this feature.
However, Llamazares teaches a method for manufacturing a stereolithographically fabricated object (abstract and as shown in Fig. 27), wherein a minimum dimension of a pattern included in the part or the entirety of the overlap area is less than a resolution of an irradiation optical system that irradiates the photo-curable resin with light (e.g. per paras. 0148-0149 and examples in Figs. 23-25), thereby providing improved resolution for making microstructures, especially on large dimension parts (paras. 0009-0010).
In view of Llamazares’ teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Wu in view LeCompere with Llamazares’ method for achieving improved resolution to predictably obtain the benefits taught by Llamazares as cited above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/25/2026 have been fully considered and are addressed below.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant presents arguments directed at the LeCompere in the previous 103 rejections of the claim. However, these arguments are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented herein, necessitated by the present amendments to claim 1.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIM R SMITH whose telephone number is (303)297-4318. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 9-6 MST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Phillip Tucker can be reached at 571-272-1095. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JRS/
Examiner
Art Unit 1745
/GEORGE R KOCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights